According to the latest passive/aggressive tome by Washington Post Columnist Eugene Robinson Binyamin Netanyahu's speech wasn't as bad as he thought it would be. He examined some of the Israeli Premier's prose from the standpoint of the progressive advocate he is while ignoring the most important part of Netanyahu's argument, based on the deal being negotiated millions of people would be placed in danger.
Robinson starts his piece by insulting Elie Wiesel describing him as a pawn who was taken advantage of by the evil Netanyahu:
The worst moment of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s speech to Congress, at least for me, came when he used Elie Wiesel, a great moral hero, as a Hollywood-style prop. Presidents giving State of the Union addresses have the right to tug at our heartstrings by saluting honored guests in the gallery. Foreign leaders taking advantage of partisan invitations do not.Hollywood style prop? I guess that's okay when President Obama handed out lab coats to the people in attendance when he was selling Obamacare, or the other countless times his progressive leader has shamelessly used people as props.
Except this time it wasn't a prop. Elie Wiesel is a moral hero because he was able to explain to the world the horrors of the Holocaust and why mankind should never allow anything like that again. Wiesel attended the speech for the same reason. He supported Netanyahu's speech because like the Prime Minister he knows that Iran is trying to embark on a new genocide of the Jewish people, first the ones in Israel, then in the US, along with all the other citizens of the Great Satan.
What Robinson doesn't understand is that even a great moral hero like Elie Wiesel can believe that President Obama can be wrong. It's hard for a non-Jew to understand two thousand years of the Jewish experience, but one thing we learned is that we can't totally rely on others for our protection--- Wiesel wasn't a there as prop he was a supporter.
As to the charge of "partisanship" if the columnist got his head out of the Obama Administration talking points he would have realized that the Prime Minister's speech wasn't partisan until the Obama administration fearful of a dissenting opinion made it partisan. Perhaps he could even read one of the many reports since Tuesday such as this one by Michael Barone indicating that most members of Congress of both parties agree with Netanyahu. The fact is it was the partisanship came from Administration commandments.
The theme of Robinson's column can be explained with this concluding paragraph:
Netanyahu was full of bluster — perhaps mostly for the voters back home, who go to the polls later this month — but there were nuggets of realism. I hope Congress actually listened.Putting aside the columnists use of the Administration-created slander that the trip to congress was only made because of the upcoming Israeli election, what the columnist called bluster was the sense of urgency of a leader whose nation was in danger and perhaps a sense of desperation because his nation was being treated like pre-WWII Czechoslovakia being sold out for a President's legacy.
While picking out what he believed was bluster interspersed with his party's talking points, Eugene Robinson missed the most important part of Netanyahu's speech--the real reason he was in Washington.
My friends, I've come here today because, as prime minister of Israel, I feel a profound obligation to speak to you about an issue that could well threaten the survival of my country and the future of my people: Iran's quest for nuclear weapons.When Elie Wiesel and millions of other Jews were suffering through the horrors of Nazi Germany, indeed through two thousand years of blood libels, crusades, inquisitions, etc. no one rose to speak out, even FDR and Churchill refused to allow Jews sanctuary from the Nazis. That was behind Netanyahu's speech, that was his message to congress. Will the United States allow Iran to get nuclear weapons today or in ten years causing millions of Jews to be murdered, or will they allow a presidential desire for a political legacy to overshadow the danger the same way it has been done for two thousand years.
We're an ancient people. In our nearly 4,000 years of history, many have tried repeatedly to destroy the Jewish people. Tomorrow night, on the Jewish holiday of Purim, we'll read the Book of Esther. We'll read of a powerful Persian viceroy named Haman, who plotted to destroy the Jewish people some 2,500 years ago. But a courageous Jewish woman, Queen Esther, exposed the plot and gave for the Jewish people the right to defend themselves against their enemies.
The plot was foiled. Our people were saved.
Today the Jewish people face another attempt by yet another Persian potentate to destroy us. Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei spews the oldest hatred, the oldest hatred of anti-Semitism with the newest technology. He tweets that Israel must be annihilated -- he tweets. You know, in Iran, there isn't exactly free Internet. But he tweets in English that Israel must be destroyed.
For those who believe that Iran threatens the Jewish state, but not the Jewish people, listen to Hassan Nasrallah, the leader of Hezbollah, Iran's chief terrorist proxy. He said: If all the Jews gather in Israel, it will save us the trouble of chasing them down around the world.
Eugene Robinson made his choice, he ignores a genuine concern calling it bluster, instead he sides with a plan which puts off the genocide for ten years not because of its efficacy, but because as a loyal progressive support for his leader comes first. And in the end does it really matter, it's only a few million dead Jews.